Why did the United States Senate debate the Panama Canal treaties for so long?

The U.S. Senate’s prolonged debate over the Torrijos-Carter Treaties was driven by intense public and political opposition, which characterized the transfer of the canal as a "giveaway" of American property.1

Key factors contributing to the extended deliberation included:

• Public Opposition: Many Americans believed the existing arrangement already ensured a secure and efficient canal. Public opinion polls indicated that only about one in three people favored the treaties, and influential groups—including the American Conservative Union and the Veterans of Foreign Wars—actively campaigned against ratification.1
• Security Concerns: Opponents feared that transferring control to Panama would jeopardize the canal's neutrality and security. The Senate remained skeptical of Panamanian leadership and was not persuaded by President Jimmy Carter’s warnings that rejecting the pacts would invite communist influence in the region.1
• Negotiation of Terms: The Senate required significant modifications to the treaties to address concerns regarding the U.S. right to defend the canal and ensure priority passage for warships. These adjustments required delicate diplomatic maneuvering to avoid triggering a second, potentially negative, plebiscite in Panama.1